Licensing strong NPIs

This paper investigates the differences in distribution between weak and strong NPIs in English. It is proposed that both weak and strong NPIs are licensed by Downward Entailing (DE) operators; but that weak NPIs only pay attention to the truth-conditional content of their licensers, while strong NPIs must pay attention to non-truthconditional meaning as well in their search for a DE licenser

The pragmatics of propositional anaphora in English

English employs a variety of devices to refer back to propositions, including demonstratives, the null complement anaphor, the pronominal it and the proform so. The last of these shows a relatively limited distribution. The relative distribution of it and so has been the subject of much inquiry. In this paper, I examine their differences in responses to polar questions, in response to assertions and in the context of anaphora to embedded propositions. I make the novel observation that believe with an overt source argument tracks with it and not so in these contexts. This observation inspires a novel approach to restricted distribution of so and its characteristic effect on interpretation. The notion of a sourced doxastic background is introduced as the basis of the semantics for doxastic attitude predicates. This new notion allows evidential distinctions between predicates to be encoded

Neg-raising : polarity and presupposition

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy, 2005.Includes bibliographical references (p. 177-184).In this thesis, I advance a semantic theory of Neg-Raising rooted in the work of Bartsch (1973) and Heim (2000) and defend it against syntactic and pragmatic alternatives. The primary source of support for my position on Neg-Raising comes from the natural way in which the approach explains a variety of facts about NPI-licensing in environments containing Neg-Raising predicates. In Chapter 2, a principled account is offered of a previously ill-understood contrast in NPI-licensing under stacked Neg-Raising predicates, first pointed out in Horn (1972). Also addressed are facts advanced in favor of the syntactic theory of Neg-Raising by Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970) and Prince (1976). Horn's (1989) attractive account of Neg-Raising is reviewed in detail in Chapter 3 and found to have deficiencies, particularly in the domain of NPI-licensing. The most compelling aspect of Horn's analysis is his derivation of Neg-Raising from general principles. The purposes of Chapters 4 and 5 is to develop an alternative analysis of Neg-Raising that attains a comparable depth of explanation. First, I compare the behavior of negated Neg-Raising predicates to that of negated definite plurals.(cont.) Next, I show that there is a significant correlation across constructions between obeying the Excluded Middle and having the properties of definite plurals. Finally, I offer a tentative explanation of why definite plurals obey the Excluded Middle.by Jon Robert Gajewski.Ph.D

Defining the Critical Hurdles in Cancer Immunotherapy

ABSTRACT: Scientific discoveries that provide strong evidence of antitumor effects in preclinical models often encounter significant delays before being tested in patients with cancer. While some of these delays have a scientific basis, others do not. We need to do better. Innovative strategies need to move into early stage clinical trials as quickly as it is safe, and if successful, these therapies should efficiently obtain regulatory approval and widespread clinical application. In late 2009 and 2010 the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), convened an "Immunotherapy Summit" with representatives from immunotherapy organizations representing Europe, Japan, China and North America to discuss collaborations to improve development and delivery of cancer immunotherapy. One of the concepts raised by SITC and defined as critical by all parties was the need to identify hurdles that impede effective translation of cancer immunotherapy. With consensus on these hurdles, international working groups could be developed to make recommendations vetted by the participating organizations. These recommendations could then be considered by regulatory bodies, governmental and private funding agencies, pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions to facilitate changes necessary to accelerate clinical translation of novel immune-based cancer therapies. The critical hurdles identified by representatives of the collaborating organizations, now organized as the World Immunotherapy Council, are presented and discussed in this report. Some of the identified hurdles impede all investigators, others hinder investigators only in certain regions or institutions or are more relevant to specific types of immunotherapy or first-in-humans studies. Each of these hurdles can significantly delay clinical translation of promising advances in immunotherapy yet be overcome to improve outcomes of patients with cancer

Defining the critical hurdles in cancer immunotherapy

Scientific discoveries that provide strong evidence of antitumor effects in preclinical models often encounter significant delays before being tested in patients with cancer. While some of these delays have a scientific basis, others do not. We need to do better. Innovative strategies need to move into early stage clinical trials as quickly as it is safe, and if successful, these therapies should efficiently obtain regulatory approval and widespread clinical application. In late 2009 and 2010 the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), convened an "Immunotherapy Summit" with representatives from immunotherapy organizations representing Europe, Japan, China and North America to discuss collaborations to improve development and delivery of cancer immunotherapy. One of the concepts raised by SITC and defined as critical by all parties was the need to identify hurdles that impede effective translation of cancer immunotherapy. With consensus on these hurdles, international working groups could be developed to make recommendations vetted by the participating organizations. These recommendations could then be considered by regulatory bodies, governmental and private funding agencies, pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions to facilitate changes necessary to accelerate clinical translation of novel immune-based cancer therapies. The critical hurdles identified by representatives of the collaborating organizations, now organized as the World Immunotherapy Council, are presented and discussed in this report. Some of the identified hurdles impede all investigators; others hinder investigators only in certain regions or institutions or are more relevant to specific types of immunotherapy or first-in-humans studies. Each of these hurdles can significantly delay clinical translation of promising advances in immunotherapy yet if overcome, have the potential to improve outcomes of patients with cancer

Emerging concepts in biomarker discovery; The US-Japan workshop on immunological molecular markers in oncology

Supported by the Office of International Affairs, National Cancer Institute (NCI), the "US-Japan Workshop on Immunological Biomarkers in Oncology" was held in March 2009. The workshop was related to a task force launched by the International Society for the Biological Therapy of Cancer (iSBTc) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to identify strategies for biomarker discovery and validation in the field of biotherapy. The effort will culminate on October 28th 2009 in the "iSBTc-FDA-NCI Workshop on Prognostic and Predictive Immunologic Biomarkers in Cancer", which will be held in Washington DC in association with the Annual Meeting. The purposes of the US-Japan workshop were a) to discuss novel approaches to enhance the discovery of predictive and/or prognostic markers in cancer immunotherapy; b) to define the state of the science in biomarker discovery and validation. The participation of Japanese and US scientists provided the opportunity to identify shared or discordant themes across the distinct immune genetic background and the diverse prevalence of disease between the two Nations

More on Quantifiers in Comparative Clauses

From the Proceedings of SALT XVIII, 200